Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Locker
Play ListsSTATUS
The older I get, the more I think that most criticisms that turn based is 'outdated' compared to action systems are ridiculous. It's like saying chess, or checkers even is 'outdated'.
Feldschlacht IV- 11/17/2016 09:23 PM
Posts 
TheNecromancer
3160
Closeauthor=Craze
if the mooks in dynasty warriors were smart, the game would be fucking awful to play.
I don't know why you play games, but I couldn't disagree more with this. The games I've played have enemies doing literally nothing. They all crowd around you and maybe one or two will swing their weapons. I play games to strategize and encounter resistance. Not mash button to win. Even when the generals show up, they aren't very smart or much of a challenge. They usually just have higher HP and invincibility frames to make the fight drag on long enough to justify playing it. And maybe they can actually block so that you have to stop mashing for a second before you start mashing some more.
If a player gets frustrated because they do poorly at games, the answer isn't to lobotomize the enemies. If there are difficulty levels that affect it, that's fine. But usually there is no such setting and the game is braindead easy until they scale up the dmg the enemies do so it's just as easy except you have to not get hit at all. It also ties into the fact that the enemies have just a few tools and don't have any kind of strategy to make good use of them.
It's possible good examples exist but I haven't seen them. So I can only speak from my own experience. Also I'm good at games, so I have an easier time finding exploits in enemy AI. Maybe that's the difference? (not that I'm suggesting you suck at games haha no) One person might have a hard time beating Crash Man in MM2, but I can make him dance to my whims.
Oh, and I guess turn based battles are ok xD I haven't played much of those in recent years but I still like the concept. I want to make one some day and give it my best shot at correcting the bad AI issue. I think it has to do with effort. Instead of taking the time to code different scenarios, devs just create a basic framework, assign moves within the framework, and that's it. I would want to create all kinds of rules like: (enemy)if your ally is a common target do this buff/guard him, if the hero just cured someone cast silence on the one that did, or if the hero keeps using fire moves increase your resistance to it. And much more, of course, those are still fairly basic. But at least it's not just, use this at random and every 6 turns do this and when low hp do that. To give the enemies some semblance of reacting to your moves, just not acting.
That also depends on the moves themselves. If it's just dmg, more dmg, and dmg plus status/element there isn't much room to be creative. But if you have moves that do more interesting things, there is room to be creative and make the player think about what to do next. Not just about how they can deal the most damage while taking the least.
author=Feldschlacht IV
I'm not sure this is really fair! (I don't mean the reference to FF12, but your statement in general) Buff/Debuff/HitWeakness, among other mechanics, is a stable of almost all RPGs (Western and Eastern and everything in between), and those aren't bad features, it's the application of those features that determine the complexity and quality of a game.
I mean, we can grind anything down to its base parts. Are all action games are 'hit the other dude until he's dead before he does the same to you'? That's not true either.
Oh it is reductivist as all hell but at the same time it's all that some games are, especially older RPGs. You can use Buff/Debuff/HitWeakness in general terms, like in FF14 timing your buffs so you can unload on the boss when you aren't having to pay attention to mechanics, or saving a debuff for when a big hit is coming to reduce its damage, or hitting a weakness via an attack that reduces an enemy who's already at zero HP's immortality buff to zero to finish them off.
I'm talking about when Buff/Debuff/HitWeakness isn't used in general terms, but when it's all the game is. You have an overwhelmingly good and always available buff and there's never a reason unless you're one-shotting them anyways, you have a SoS/D debuff (that actually works) on an enemy you can't immediately dispose of, or the weakness is nothing more than putting the appropriate geometric shape into their corresponding hole. It's certainly an issue of execution that too many RPGs decided they'd love to stick it in the fridge and pick at it year after year than maybe try something beyond the last decade's leftovers.
Honestly, it's all in how it plays out. Even setting up strategies can amount to just "Hit this weakpoint, hit that weakpoint, apply this buff, kill".
Honestly, I like it when you can apply a few different strategies to a battle, but not be able to use the same strategy on every battle in the game. I mean, don't make it too difficult but allowing for a few simple strategies on how to handle a monster makes that battle a bit more fun.
As long as it doesn't overstay it's welcome, of course.
For an off-the-cuff example: A metal-shell enemy with high defence against spells/armour. Have to use fire and ice spells first to break metal shell, then deal a buffed-up weapon blow will kill the enemy fast, but you could also just chip away at it's HP over a few turns instead if you don't have any elemental spells. Two ways of dealing with the same enemy, one more effective than the other but both viable.
And of course this lends itself to turn-based style quite well. :shrug:
It's not the battle system that's an issue, but how it's used and the skills/balance of the enemies/heroes that make or break how good a battle is. Blaming the tools for the creator's faults, basically.
Honestly, I like it when you can apply a few different strategies to a battle, but not be able to use the same strategy on every battle in the game. I mean, don't make it too difficult but allowing for a few simple strategies on how to handle a monster makes that battle a bit more fun.
As long as it doesn't overstay it's welcome, of course.
For an off-the-cuff example: A metal-shell enemy with high defence against spells/armour. Have to use fire and ice spells first to break metal shell, then deal a buffed-up weapon blow will kill the enemy fast, but you could also just chip away at it's HP over a few turns instead if you don't have any elemental spells. Two ways of dealing with the same enemy, one more effective than the other but both viable.
And of course this lends itself to turn-based style quite well. :shrug:
It's not the battle system that's an issue, but how it's used and the skills/balance of the enemies/heroes that make or break how good a battle is. Blaming the tools for the creator's faults, basically.
